Well, the title says it all. What styles were the most successfull in the history of the sport. So my first 6 Tiers, equaling a Top21, atgs put into the 4 styles I think any boxer can be put into: 7 boxer-puncher: Robinson, Charles, Moore, Monzon, Louis, R. Leonard, Jofre 5 boxer: Ross, Ali, Pep, Whitaker, B. Leonard 4 puncher: Langford, Fitzsimmons, Wilde, Walcott (Barbados) 3 brawler: Duran, Walker, Chavez 2 swarmer: Greb, Armstrong Do you agree with the categories? Do you agree with the fighters in the categories? Does that mean it´s easier with certain styles to achieve greatness and it´s harder with others? If it is so, should the guys with the "easy" styles get knocked because of it and the guys fighting the "harder" styles get more credit? Discuss!
Very good and elaborated post :good Well, you are right but imo he fits in there best throughout his career. He obviously could do much more than just brawl and he changed his style very often but throughout his career one thing was constant: he liked to come forward and stand there toe to toe. That´s why I thought he would fit in there best. Where would you place him? What do you think of the rest?
The categories seem fine but as sweet pea pointed out, certain fighters are suited to more than 1 category (if they are only allowed in 1 cat. the I suppose Duran is in the correct cat.) As for who are most successfull, each category has fighters that were ATG successfull so it depends on which styles you prefer yourself. If pushed, I would probably pick the boxers cat. with Ali, Pep n co. but in reality I like all styles of fighting & it tends to be the actual man using the style more than the style itself that makes me like a fighter.
Brawler-Boxer would be more fitting for both Duran and Chavez. Although, of the catagories you have, I'd put Duran in boxer-puncher. It's always been hard for me to accept a guy so skilled and tactical as Duran being called brawler. To answer the thread question, I think a boxer-puncher will have better chances to be great than any other style. For all of the other styles there is another one that could prove to be that style's foil. A boxer-puncher, by my definition, is a man who when faced with great punchers had the boxing skills to win and when faced with a great boxer had the punch to seperate themselves from their equally-skilled foe. Duran clearly fits into that catagory IMO. Also, Benny Leonard would be a boxer-puncher in my book.
Firstly, good list. I really think most fighters fought in the style that suited their natural abilities best. The very best fighters were versatile enough to at times take on other styles for a round or two etc.
I disagree. I'm not a regular poster in the classic (still learning my boxing-lore), but I find this an interesting topic. Is the consensus boxer-puncher then?
Well, I think Duran fits more into the brawler category than into the boxer-puncher one stylewise, he was far more skilled than the average brawler and so was Chavez but nonetheless I think they fit best in there. It´s about style not skill. Well, I´m not that familiar with Benny´s style. Have mostly read about him and not seen that much and to me he seemed more of a pure boxer since two of you guys think otherwise and I assume you know more about him than me I may change his categorization.
Well, sure are some of them suited for more than one category. I tried to put them into the one they fit best. Duran could be put into 4 of the 5 categories for example but one thing was the same throughout his career: he liked to come forward and stand toe to toe that´s why I put him into the brawler one. Personally my preferred style is the skilled, slick counterpuncher alá Hopkins but when I make a list I don´t go by who I like. Hopkins for me is no atg since I only recognize 25 fighters as such. He is a great at mw but that´s it. I make those lists based on accomplishments, resume, longevityand a few second rate categories. I try to be as objective as I can and so I don´t think my lists are influenced by the style I prefer.
Well you can call them whatever you want, it is your thread after all, but to me Duran wasn't a brawler. Yes he went forward more often than not, but Duran wasn't the kind of guy who had to go forward to win. Joe Frazier is a great figther that fits into the brawler catagory. Duran proved (mostly above 135) that he was excellent even when his foe pushed him back. Like I said, to me a boxer-puncher is a man who can outbox the best punchers he faces and outpunch the best boxers, Duran fits perfectly into that catagory. It is about style, but style comes from skill. He was better going forward than backward, so he went forward most of the time, however he was an outstanding fighter even when being pushed backwards. Duran just proved himself far, far, far to good to be labeled a brawler. Maybe it's just me, but brawler, a term that IMO is used for fighters with average or less-than-average skill, is something I never have really accepted as being the label for the BEST fighter I have personally ever seen. Duran was too complete, too good at absolutely everything, to be referred to as a brawler. As you said, he could fit into 4 catagories, but that is what I am talking about. He was much more than brawler (get hit and hit back, wear you down with toughness and aggression), Duran could outbox bigger, stronger, and younger men (Barkley and Moore), and could outpunch most lightweights in history. A boxer-puncher is a complete fighter, Duran was the most complete fighter I've ever seen, so I have him in that catagory.
